Policy regarding OS X on non-Apple Hardware

[Zoea]

Do both OSX and BSD share WinNT's tick based kernel structure? Linux moved on in a rather impressive way recently to tickless kernel variant.

If OSX was tickless I may try "hackintosh-ing" at some future day :yes: :rolleyes: :wacko:

[Tim Dorr Veteran]

Any 30-day re-imaging has nothing to do with copyright. If I take one DVD and install it every 30 days on the same computer to avoid WGA, that is a EULA issue, not a copyright one.

I do not question the direction, only the claim that re-installing Vista every 30 days violates copyright.

Oh sorry, I was thinking you were talking about removing the 30 day check or something. Helps if I read those links!

In that case, that's totally fine within copyright law. Microsoft has given an implicit 30 day trial period, but they haven't stated there's a limit on the number of trials per person. So, basically that's exploiting they're own ignorance, but it's not violating any law.

Do both OSX and BSD share WinNT's tick based kernel structure? Linux moved on in a rather impressive way recently to tickless kernel variant.

If OSX was tickless I may try "hackintosh-ing" at some future day :yes: :rolleyes: :wacko:

What are you doing that requires a particular kernel architecture?

[Chad]

In order to differentiate new support threads in the forums, tagging your thread title with [OSx86] is now necessary.

Example: [OSx86] Can't get wireless card to be recognized

By 'supports threads', is that literally just threads asking for support or all x86 discussion/support

http://neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=639823&hl=

[kennyout]

This topic was brought to my attention from the Neowin IRC...

(-)= added more or less to comment within and whatnot)

[17:03] Kennyout: so wait, all this time, Apple has been breaking the law?

[17:04] Kennyout: or is this why Apple really can't shut down Pyrstar(or whatever they are called)?

17:04] sudo: Psystar?

[17:06] Kennyout: so now i'm tempted to get a Core2 Duo, or quad, Intel Mobo, ram, Nvidia graphics card, and Apple OSX and EFI some drives

[17:10] Kennyout: " think they've just opened up a big can of worms that they really should have kept covered up.

Its a very slippery slope they have just started down." (at this point was reading through some of the comments)

[17:11] Mephistopheles: What are your thoughts, Kennyout?

[17:11] Mephistopheles: Bad move or good move(?)

[17:13] Kennyout: on one part, potential bad, i have to know how and if the 1984 ruling has been used as defense in other cases, how many times it's worked, failed, and why Apple pretty much prevented it from working on other computers(processors), considering now that they are x86 CPUs for Apple PCs, and right now mostly seem to now almost be same hardware overall......

[17:13] Kennyout: on the good part: alot of people can obtain it legally, and are quite the modders

[17:14] Kennyout: i for one would not mind dual booting with boot camp on a home made ApplePC (I like tinkering)

[17:15] Kennyout: because then i could pretty much use the Apple OS for everything i would use for entertainment, music, ect possiblly, while Windows would pretty much just be for gaming, but then raises the question, what would be the point, i would still have to install virus scanner/spyware software. (or drop PC gaming, because most of my PC games are PC exclusive)

Around here, some people are probablly running illegally obtained copies of Windows X, let alone Apple OSX/whathave you, but it is probably minimual (i hope to god), and not discussed, and no one is to link, or tell where they get such, or mention they have such. As for the people saying everyone who will be installing OSX on a non-Mac Hackintosh system, are pretty much incorrect in my book, due to my turn of a blind eye to such. It is possible to supposelly install OSX on PC hardware now with EFI emulation(which is funny, because i beleive some Windows Server software did such too, i mean Windows x64 even had an option of EFIing drives---i was tempted just to see what would happen, but never did, nor sure it would even boot such).

I really would like to see the 1984 court ruling, see how many times it's been used in a defense, and how many times it's worked, and why Apple did not do such support just for random boxes, without such support for such(would mean that you were on your own if you choose to install such)...

...It also raises a funny issue on terms of why Microsoft had all such legacy code(driver support for say ISA, all the Printer, COM, ect connections on Motherboards that were large, slow, on the back of the PC....remember MIDI connectors?) in their current softwares (supposelly droping 16-bit programs still from WinXP x64 and Vista x64 though) and ability to install on "older" systems....to a degree, when they could supposelly say no to installing on a specific chipset level, downward(would warn user on install that such connector is not supported, and if multiple types were detected=no install)....would that be illegal?....(I don't know how else to phrase this paragraph really....something to do with if MS said "no" to chipset makers...which would have been nice had people not been screwed over when they bought those PC boxes that had ****ty Intel Chipsets that could not run it smooth...which i think is currentlly a legal matter----OOOPS! XD )

There is one thing this has potential to end, which is the annoying PC/Mac commercials. :woot: Simply put the online community like Neowin knows now that Apple is now Intel x86 pretty much overall hardware is more similar, which means would defeat the commericals trying to say PC and Mac are different, when in reality it is the OS(which the average consumer does not realize because they move on with their lives, and don't pid-diddle like we do), and if word spreads that people can put OSX on a normal PC box, Apple looses its "It just works" type thing, because of the multiple random different manufactured components in a PC box....but would increase market share when people just find out they can install it right on their current computer when they get tired of Windows... :shiftyninja: ---because then someone will sue somehow and win in court if they can pull up that 1984 thing as defense, which then will lead to computer manufactures of parts having to be supported(well sorta, i mean the component manufactures would start making drivers for OSX), and then Apple will pretty much be hurt by the influx of tech support(and without the ability to reap money gained on their closed hardware system right now) when they deny such people support, and hurts their rating.

I'm not sure if what I typed came out right.... :-/

Mephistopheles: marry me!

[thefarewellnote]

Not to be rude to the mods or anyone else at Neowin.net but I feel this was a really bad call on their part. I think there needs to be a sub forum or something in the mac area for this discussion. I for one don't care to read how some 13 year old is having problems installing his downloaded version of leopard x86. Epic FAIL...

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Not to be rude to the mods or anyone else at Neowin.net but I feel this was a really bad call on their part. I think there needs to be a sub forum or something in the mac area for this discussion. I for one don't care to read how some 13 year old is having problems installing his downloaded version of leopard x86. Epic FAIL...

It is possible that we will consider a subforum but several factors need to be weighed before that happens.

[Rudy]

+1

I am willing to bet $10 that at least 50% of NeoMac users run either pirated XP or Vista on their Macs. So why should we treat OS X any different? Neowin sure doesn't condone piracy and I am not advocating it either. Just can't figure out all the Mac users on their high horses.

I know I already replied to this comment but I thought of something while making dinner (weird I know.... lol). I think there will be a huge amount of people running illegal versions but most likely the % will be less than those running Win2k8 as a workstation......

[Julius Caro]

This topic was brought to my attention from the Neowin IRC...

(-)= added more or less to comment within and whatnot)

Around here, some people are probablly running illegally obtained copies of Windows X, let alone Apple OSX/whathave you, but it is probably minimual (i hope to god), and not discussed, and no one is to link, or tell where they get such, or mention they have such. As for the people saying everyone who will be installing OSX on a non-Mac Hackintosh system, are pretty much incorrect in my book, due to my turn of a blind eye to such. It is possible to supposelly install OSX on PC hardware now with EFI emulation(which is funny, because i beleive some Windows Server software did such too, i mean Windows x64 even had an option of EFIing drives---i was tempted just to see what would happen, but never did, nor sure it would even boot such).

I really would like to see the 1984 court ruling, see how many times it's been used in a defense, and how many times it's worked, and why Apple did not do such support just for random boxes, without such support for such(would mean that you were on your own if you choose to install such)...

...It also raises a funny issue on terms of why Microsoft had all such legacy code(driver support for say ISA, all the Printer, COM, ect connections on Motherboards that were large, slow, on the back of the PC....remember MIDI connectors?) in their current softwares (supposelly droping 16-bit programs still from WinXP x64 and Vista x64 though) and ability to install on "older" systems....to a degree, when they could supposelly say no to installing on a specific chipset level, downward(would warn user on install that such connector is not supported, and if multiple types were detected=no install)....would that be illegal?....(I don't know how else to phrase this paragraph really....something to do with if MS said "no" to chipset makers...which would have been nice had people not been screwed over when they bought those PC boxes that had ****ty Intel Chipsets that could not run it smooth...which i think is currentlly a legal matter----OOOPS! XD )

There is one thing this has potential to end, which is the annoying PC/Mac commercials. :woot: Simply put the online community like Neowin knows now that Apple is now Intel x86 pretty much overall hardware is more similar, which means would defeat the commericals trying to say PC and Mac are different, when in reality it is the OS(which the average consumer does not realize because they move on with their lives, and don't pid-diddle like we do), and if word spreads that people can put OSX on a normal PC box, Apple looses its "It just works" type thing, because of the multiple random different manufactured components in a PC box....but would increase market share when people just find out they can install it right on their current computer when they get tired of Windows... :shiftyninja: ---because then someone will sue somehow and win in court if they can pull up that 1984 thing as defense, which then will lead to computer manufactures of parts having to be supported(well sorta, i mean the component manufactures would start making drivers for OSX), and then Apple will pretty much be hurt by the influx of tech support(and without the ability to reap money gained on their closed hardware system right now) when they deny such people support, and hurts their rating.

I'm not sure if what I typed came out right.... :-/

I guess the reason apple was able to get away with it for so long it's because regular people didn't have powerPC based computers.

And there's a difference between not allowing the customer to install the OS wherever he wants, and having to support it. This doesnt mean that apple has to support people installing osx on non-apple hardware, nor does neowin allowing such discussion mean that all of a sudden it will be all the rage.

Apple knew what were the consequences of porting OSX to x86, and frankly they havent done that much to prevent it. They are partially safe. Their kernel uses sse2/sse3 instructions, sata mode is ahci, they use efi. Basically they use the 'latest stuff', which narrows the array of PCs in which it can be installed. Also they know that the BSD project is a separate thing, so the open source community can come up with drivers for hardware that is not included in any mac computer and they can't stop that.

[evo_spook]

waits for the new PowerPC engineers to get to work on the Mac only Rom Chip....

[bryonhowley]

I think the big question would be, how do you discuss OSX on non-Apple hardware without it being warez? Aren't the OSX install discs setup with a mechanism to identify if the system is an Apple one? Bypassing this would violate the EULA, wouldn't it?

Call me crazy, but it seems that any method of getting OSX on non-Apple hardware would be illegal. I'm no expert on legal matters, so I admit I may not be considering something, but it seems that OSX running on non-Apple hardware and it being illegal are mutually inclusive.

Have you ever slipped streaped a Windows Install? It is the same basic thing in as much as you start with the original disc. I installed OSX on my Intel PC with the original Leopard disc. The only paching I had to do was after the install but I am still running a vanilla kernel.

[evo_spook]

So you bought Leopard?

I have a hard time believing people are spending ?80 for a dvd that they don't know is going to work or not.

[Cormier6083]

I can't wait to see the floods asking "ZOMG MY MOBO EXPLOD OMG OSX86 OMG WHAT 2 DO?" :laugh:

[thefarewellnote]

I can't wait to see the floods asking "ZOMG MY MOBO EXPLOD OMG OSX86 OMG WHAT 2 DO?" :laugh:

+1 there goes our beloved Apple topic area.

[Sam]

Not to be rude to the mods or anyone else at Neowin.net but I feel this was a really bad call on their part. I think there needs to be a sub forum or something in the mac area for this discussion. I for one don't care to read how some 13 year old is having problems installing his downloaded version of leopard x86. Epic FAIL...

How is that treated any different from someone talking about a "downloaded version" of XP or Vista? It is cleary stated in the first post that "Neowin still has a strong policy against warez of any kind and thus any discussion on illegally obtained copies of Mac OS X and such will be dealt with accordingly.".

[Melfster]

So you bought Leopard?

I have a hard time believing people are spending ?80 for a dvd that they don't know is going to work or not.

Just like I have hard time of believing the majority of mac owners buy Vista to duel boot. This is really no different then the numerous other hacks people discuss on this site. Everything from the Iphone, PSP, Xbox or hundred of the other hacks discussed. Why is apple so special?

[Cormier6083]

Or how about a seperate section of it's own for all of the iPhone, Playstation Portable, Xbox, OSX86 hacks tucked into the bowels of the site. That is what I would like to see. And the posts from there be excluded from the "Latest Activity" portion.

[evo_spook]

Just like I have hard time of believing the majority of mac owners buy Vista to duel boot. This is really no different then the numerous other hacks people discuss on this site. Everything from the Iphone, PSP, Xbox or hundred of the other hacks discussed. Why is apple so special?

With Vista/XP and Boot Camp you are buying a product you know is going to work, with OSX you don't, so people are more likely to download plus OSX has no activation like XP/Vista.

Who said anything about Apple being special, but its amounting to discussing piracy whether its Vista, XP or OSX

[Leddy]

You can run Vista for 30-days per install. Will that rule forbidding this be removed now? After all, less circumvention is being done reinstalling than there is in making OSX work on beige box hardware.

That sounds like picking and choosing among what EULA provisions are honored and which are not. And that is the EULA, as there is no "law" that forbids multiple installs - outside of Copyright law. And Copyright law is based on... get this... the terms of the EULA.

I accept it is now legal to discuss OSX86. I just don't see consistency with other EULAs

It does look like the Neowin staff are picking which EULA clauses are honoured or not; but they've chosen wisely. The "OS X on Apple hardware only" clause is unlikely to be upheld in a court of law because of the 1984 case. The "install on only one computer" is likely to be upheld by a court.

I personally think it's really amusing that all the Apple neowinians are already up in arms about this, it's like they mark their territory here and now someone's stepped over their line.

[evo_spook]

It does look like the Neowin staff are picking which EULA clauses are honoured or not; but they've chosen wisely. The "OS X on Apple hardware only" clause is unlikely to be upheld in a court of law because of the 1984 case. The "install on only one computer" is likely to be upheld by a court.

Not that I can see, if you're using the argument, I bought the OSX dvd I can install it on whatever machine I like then the same stands for the Windows disk and how many machines you decide to install it on.

[Digitalx]

this is good to see and understand but it's kind of conflicting i think.

osx86 involves patching etc for example the AMD patches and stuff are these methods considered circumvention under neowins rules and will be moderated ? cause doesn't that defy the whole point of this...

Or is this for support only for those who've installed it and won't provide or allow support of installing threads etc ?

Edited May 28, 2008 by Digix

[markwolfe Veteran]

Not that I can see, if you're using the argument, I bought the OSX dvd I can install it on whatever machine I like then the same stands for the Windows disk and how many machines you decide to install it on.

As long as you don't circumvent any protection methods (WGA or product keys).

[evo_spook]

Yes it will be interesting to now hear what is or is not able to be discussed, is there anything else thats not allowed to be discussed that falls within similar boundaries, take for example, XBOX and PS3 games, these are made for consoles, if it was possible with a bit of hacking (either of the game disk or OS) it was possible to play on them a PC, would the methods used to hack them be allowed?

As long as you don't circumvent any protection methods (WGA or product keys).

isn't this a case of deciding which EULAs are OK to break and which are not? say you have to add a hacked file to windows to make it work on more then one pc, is that any different to adding a hacked file on OSX to make it work on a normal PC, if one is allowed to be discussed why not both.

[vanacid]

If someone asks for help about Mac OS X and has problem with a software we will ask this question :

Do you run it on Apple's hardware or is it a custom box that is not designed to run Mac OS X ?

If you have "legit hardware" we will help you, if it is not the case you will not be answered.

If you must "debug" a machine that is not designed to run Mac OS X, it is your own fault if something crashes. Don't ask for help.

Edit : I am a happy Mac OS X user. I love my iMac a lot. Do yourself a favor, buy a Mac if you want to use Mac OS.

[Cara Veteran]

If someone asks for help about Mac OS X and has problem with a software we will ask this question :

Do you run it on Apple's hardware or is it a custom box that is not designed to run Mac OS X ?

If you have "legit hardware" we will help you, if it is not the case you will not be answered.

We like to help people, but you must "debug" machine that is not designed to run Mac OS X, it is your own fault if something crashes.

Let me chime in here...

As much as I dislike Hackintoshes, I'd hope that Apple users that do not want to help X86ers out would just avoid the topics so labeled. There is no sense in assuming that someone who didn't label their thread as a Hackintosh thread is using one, that is contrary to the sense of community.

If someone asks for help in an unbranded thread, I'd hope all Apple users would flock to assisting them. If someone asks for help in an X86 thread, I will leave that up to the individual user to decide how they wish to handle it.

Don't start treating each other badly, that isn't how the Apple Community works. :p

[evo_spook]

Bring back the Keyboard Power Key I say to start OSX only